Original Purposes of the 14th Amendment:

March 1st, 2012

Originally, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit the States from disarming American Citizens. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/26/arpubrg022603.htm
One of the original purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to restrain the States from violating any of the First Eight of the Bill of Rights. Read Jon Roland’s (Constitution Society) article “Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights”
at http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

See also, “Law, a Revolutionary Idea For Peace.” at http://www.billstclair.com/ferran
Original Purposes of the 14th Amendment: Romer v. Evans (State High Court Decision):

Justice SCOTT concurring:

“Citizenship, not the good graces of the electorate, is the currency of our republican form of government. Over 130 years ago, this nation was engaged in a great Civil War which tested our constitutional form of government as has no other time in our history. That great battle, joined to address issues of slavery and race, actually resolved much more. History teaches us that, in fact, our nation addressed a question of paramount importance: whether any state may, by legislative enactment or popular referendum, deny or refute the Union of the several states and render asunder the bonds of our constitutional form of government. Although answered at Appomatox, today we are called upon to answer, if not resolve, that question once more.

The federal Constitution, as submitted to the various states, created certain rights which the states cannot diminish. … Thus, within the limits of state sovreignty, most important questions are decided by the electorate. However, those matters in which the result intrudes upon a protected liberty or fundamental right cannot be determined in the voting booth.

The framers originally recognized this potential for harm and understood that not every issue can be resolved by the vote of a majority. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison identified the covenant of “a well constructed Union” as its promise to protect and preserve inviolate certain rights of all citizens. The Federalist No. 10, at 42 (J. Madison) (Wills 1982). Madison noted that under other forms of government, “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority.” Id. at 43. Madison further stated:

The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place . . . . If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself.

. . .

It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.

Id., No. 51, at 262 & 264. Appropriately, Madison suggested, the “cure” rests in a republican form of government — a Union in which there is a “tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Id., No. 10 at 42. The obligation to “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part” exists whether the oppressive act is the result of referendum or other state action. Hence, every individual is promised full citizenship under a written Constitution which, as Justice Harlan opined, “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1895) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. Const. amend XIV, section 1. The Fourteenth Amendment, in section 1, made state citizenship derivative of national citizenship and transferred to the federal government a portion of each state’s control over civil and political rights.

The statements of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Howard and Representative Bingham, confirm that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was originally intended to confer and make inviolate certain minimal rights embodied in national citizenship.

The Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause was patterned after a similar clause in Article IV, Section 2. The Fourteenth Amendment Clause was thought by its framers to be one of the central elements of section 1.
It was this opinion which became the pole star for Representative Bingham and Senator Howard, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Presenting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, Senator Howard disclosed “the views and the motives which influenced that committee,” stating:

To [the privileges and immunities of Citizens of the United States], whatever they may be — for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature — to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search and seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

. . . it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. . . . The great objective of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., part 3, pp. 2765-66 (1866) (emphasis added).

Senator Howard’s list of privileges or immunities, which incorporated Corfield, was representative rather than exhaustive. No case has ever attempted to identify the totality of implied federal rights guaranteed by the Privileges or Immunities clause. However, in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908), the Supreme Court did provide a list of privileges or immunities which it recognized: (1) the right to pass freely from state to state; /20 (2) the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances; (3) the right to vote for national officers; (4) the right to enter the public lands; (5) the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States Marshal; and (6) the right to inform United States authorities of violation of its laws. Twining, 211 U.S. at 97. These rights of national citizenship receive absolute protection in the sense that the states never could have a legitimate interest in terminating completely any of these rights. Rotunda & Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law 351 (2d ed. 1992).

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to vote is fundamental to the rights of citizenship and to a free and democratic society. Burson v. Freeman, 112 S. Ct. 1846, 1859 (1992); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62 (1963); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 371 (1886). … This right to participate, an attribute of the new national citizenship, was meant by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to be a personal right guaranteed and secured by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., part 3, pp. 2765-66 (1866).
…

Certainly all must now agree that the Fourteenth Amendment sought to protect citizens from oppression by state government. The Equal Protection Clause of that amendment mandates that rights afforded to some are granted equally to all. See Steven J. Heyman, The First Duty of Government: Protection, Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment, 41 Duke L.J. 507 (1991).”

http://www.freedomforum.org/fac/95-96/rome_low.htm

Compare: Romer v. Evans 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996) http://www.freedomforum.org/fac/95-96/rome_sum.htm

Source: The Lantern
http://www.thelantern.com/news/388827.html

Fourteenth what?
Ohio won’t ratify amendment

On Wednesday, the office of State Senator Mark Mallory
released a statement on the condition of Ohio’s
ratification of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution.

Mallory said he feels several conservative members of
the General Assembly may block the ratification of the
amendment by adding controversial language.

“The only thing more embarrassing than Ohio’s failure
to ratify the 14th Amendment for the last 135 years is
that there is any opposition to it now,” Mallory said.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified
nationally in 1868. It grants equal protection under
the law to all citizens.

The conservative assembly members oppose the
amendment’s citation in cases like Roe v. Wade and the
recent Pledge of Allegiance case.

The stance of these Republican assembly members is
completely ridiculous. The 14th amendment was ratified
by the states in 1868 and is the law of the land. Ohio
needs to pass this so we can move on.

The Republicans’ grievance on this issue is not with
the 14th Amendment or the Constitution; it’s with the
courts. Courts make their own decisions based on their
interpretation of the law. This does not represent an
issue with the Constitution, but with the judges and
courts.

The Roe v. Wade argument is irrelevant. Nobody would
look at passage of this measure as some sort of policy
shift for Ohio Republicans. They can still oppose
abortion and Roe v. Wade, but opposing this amendment
makes Ohio look like Mississippi in the 1960s.

Ohio Democrats have hinted there will be an effort to
draw national media attention to this issue. The
Lantern applauds the Democrats for having some spine
on this issue.

Slavery was the darkest period in American history.
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed to try
to put that shameful period behind us. The Ohio
Republicans not passing this amendment is obviously
not an endorsement of slavery, but it’s not an
endorsement of freedom either.

Don’t blame the Constitution for the actions of the
courts. Passing the 14th amendment is a symbolic
gesture to show that Ohio respects the Constitution.
What does it say about our state if we don’t ratify
the Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal
protection under the law?

__________________________________________________

Our Birthrights in the Fourteenth Amendment:

Every “person” born in America who possesses Life, Liberty and Property should understand that the Law Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are the most important provisions of the Federal Constitution to a person who is attempting to resist an interference with his Rights by the State or by agents of state or local government. Being “born” a “Citizen of the United States” gives you a BIRTHRIGHT including political rights that non-citizens do not possess. Being a Citizen of the United States makes you a Citizen of the State in which you choose to Reside, and Gives you the Power to Change your mind about which State you shall settle and become a citizen of. Without the rule for changing state citizenship in the first sentence Fourteenth Amendment people born into one state could be barred from becoming a voting-citizen of a different state. There are many ignorant American Citizens who seem to think that they should Abandon and Waive their BirthRights (to the Protection of Law and Citizenship) under the Fourteenth in order to enjoy Civil Liberty (or sometimes heathen liberty of some sort or another). These ignorant people are subject to even more severe condemnation and ridicule than was Esau for giving up his birthright. Esau was called “a profane person”. See, “THE BAD BARGAIN OF ESAU” at http://www.bible.ca/eo/text/gen25_29.htm

One of the original purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to restrain the States from violating any of the First Eight of the Bill of Rights. Read Jon Roland’s (Constitution Society) article “Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights”
at http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit the States from disarming American Citizens. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/26/arpubrg022603.htm

See also, “Law, a Revolutionary Idea For Peace.” at http://www.billstclair.com/ferran

American Citizens who despise and voluntarily abandon their Birthrights under the Fourteenth Amendment are bargaining for nothing but more “Unauthorized Deprivations” (of life, liberty, and property) and ENSLAVEMENT. (See, “Part 2: Unauthorized Deprivations” at http://www.billstclair.com/ferran )
They are also dishonoring the Great Sacrifices: the Blood of Men; and the Humility of Sovereign States, that secured the Birthrights in the Fourteenth Amendment to them and to their fellow-citizens and to their progeny.
In the eyes of the Powerful (e.g., Rebellious Rulers and Thieves) there are no “inherent rights” apart from those rights which are Secured by Superior FORCE and/or by the Protection of LAW backed up by Superior FORCE. The Fourteenth Amendment formally Pledges the Protection of the Superior Force of the whole People of the United States to PROTECT every individual “person” “as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the” State. 110 U.S. 516, 535-36 (1884). http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

“Providing equal justice for poor and rich, weak and powerful alike, is an age old problem. (Citing Leviticus c. 19 v. 15) People have never ceased to hope and strive to move closer to that goal. This hope, at least in part, brought about in 1215 the royal concessions of Magna Charta. “No free man shall be taken, nor imprisoned, nor dispossessed of his property, nor put out of the protection of the laws, nor exiled, nor anywise destroyed, … but by … the law of the land.’ In this tradition, our own constitutional guaranties of due process and equal protection … allow no invidious discriminations between persons and different groups of persons.”

351 US 12, 16, 17 (1956). http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

This “the law is the birthright of every [citizen].” http://www.constitution.org/js/js_116.htm

“Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application of the law. `All men are equal before the law,’ `this is a government of laws and not of men.’ `No man is above the law,’ were all maxims showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives, and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws. But the framers and adopters of the [fourteenth] amendment were not content to depend on a mere minimum secured by the due process clause, or upon the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by local [government]. Therefore they embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty. The guaranty [of equal protection of the laws] was aimed at undue favor and individual or class privilege, on the one hand, and at hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality on the other. It sought equality of treatment of all persons … similarly situated. …. It means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and under like circumstances.” 257 US 312, 331, 338 (1921) http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

“[T]he prohibition [in the Fourteenth Amendment] against the deprivation of property without due process of law reflects the high value, embedded in our constitutional and political history, that we place on a person’s right to enjoy what is his, free of governmental interference.” http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html 407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972)

This Birthright of Protection of the Laws was SECURED by the Fourteenth Amendment as against the violence of lawless State agents.
“Fairly construed [the Fourteenth Amendment] may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Charta. …. Every word employed has an established signification. ….”Due process of law” is the application of the Law as it exists, in the fair and regular course of administrative procedure. “The equal protection of the laws” places all upon a footing of legal equality and gives the same protection to all for the preservation of life, liberty, and property, and the pursuit of happiness.”

83 U.S. 36, 125-27 (1872) http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

“The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, later incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, was intended to give Americans at least the protection against governmental power that they had enjoyed as Englishmen against the power of the Crown.”

430 U.S. 651, 672-3 (1976). http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

“the terms ‘due process of law’… come to us from the law of England, from which country our jurisprudence is to a great extent derived, and their requirement was there designed to secure the subject against the arbitrary action of the crown and place him under the protection of the law.”

430 U.S. 651,123 (1888). http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

For an American Citizen to Repudiate and disavow his Birthright to the Protection of the Law, secured to him by the First Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, is for all practical purposes a form of Treason against the People of the United States.

“In so far as the [colonists] gave [Magna Charta] a content, it was this meaning that they transferred with it to the American state constitutions and later to the Federal Constitution in the Fifth [and Fourteenth] Amendment[s]. It was the attempt of the English government to tear away these rights from the cornerstone of English liberty that led directly to the American Revolution.”

Rodney L. Mott, The American Revolution, in Due Process of Law ? 51, p. 136 (Da Cappo Press, New York, 1973).

http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

“That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English Constitution, and their several charters or compacts, were entitled to life, liberty, and property; and that they had never ceded to any sovereign power whatever a right to dispose of either, without their consent; that their ancestors, who first settled the colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother-country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects.”

Resolution of the First Continental Congress, as quoted in Stevens, Sources of the Constitution, pp. 210-11, as quoted in Mott, supra , at ? 5, p. 13, n.42; See also , William R. Sanford and Carl R. Green, Basic Principles of American Government 43 (rev. ed., AMSCO Sch. Pub. 1980).

http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

[O]ur fathers were not absurd enough to put unlimited power in the hands of the ruler and take away the protection of law from the rights of individuals. [That course would not] ‘secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.’ (Preamble, US Constitution) They determined that not one drop of the blood which had been shed on the other side of the Atlantic, during seven centuries of contest with arbitrary power, should sink into the ground; but the fruits of every popular victory should be garnered up in this new government. Of all the great rights already won they threw not an atom away. They went over Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, the [English] Bill of Rights, and the rules of the common law, and whatever was found there to favor individual liberty they carefully inserted in their own system, improved by clearer expression, strengthened by heavier sanctions, and extended by a more universal application. They put all those provisions into the organic law, so that neither tyranny in the executive [or judiciary], nor … in the legislature, could change them without destroying the government itself.

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed. 281, 4 Wall. 2 (1866).

Just as the framers of the Bill of Rights insured that “not one drop of the blood which had been shed … during seven centuries of contest with arbitrary power, should sink into the ground,” so also did the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment insure that “not one drop of the blood which had been shed” during the first American Civil War would be shed for naught. Instead, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment gave to every “person” born within the United States a BIRTHRIGHT including all the privileges and immunities of Citizens of the United States, which expressly include the Right to the Protection of the Law, and the Protection of the National Government “as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the” State. 110 U.S. 516, 535-36 (1884). http://www.billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

American citizens who disavow and disdain their birthrights under the Fourteenth Amendment are a danger to themselves and to their fellow citizens and to their Country. We need to educate fellow citizens to DEMAND the State and Federal Government RESPECT and abide by the BirthRights SECURED by the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or those rights will disappear through atrophy and voluntary relinquishment.

Sincerely,
Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl

www.billstclair.com/ferran

P.S.

Re: Fourteenth Amendment Birthrights:

The “Fifth” Amendment compels the agents of the FEDERAL Government (and US Territorial governments) to abide by “Law” and to keep within “Due Process of Law.” See, Part 1 at www.billstclair.com/ferran

The Fourteenth Amendment compels the agents of the STATE Government to abide by “Law” and to keep within “Due Process of Law.” See, Part 1 at www.billstclair.com/ferran

You simply have to be able (and willing) to READ (Legal History) to understand why BOTH the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are necesssary for the security of your Life, Liberty and Property (including your parental rights):

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to do even MORE than establish the requirement of “Due Process of Law.” See, Part 1 at www.billstclair.com/ferran

“The first eight of these amendments (proposed by Congress on the 25th September 1789 and ratified by the States by the 15th December 1792) contain the Bill of Rights whereby the specific rights provided therein are protected. These amendments prohibit Congress from making any laws respecting the establishment of religion or abridging the freedom of speech or press or the right of the people pecably to assemble and to petition Government. They prohibit violation of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. They preserve certain rights in connection with criminal proceedings and they prevent the deprivation of life, liberty and propetry without due process of law. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendaments to the Constitution provided for constitutional protection for the citizen against STATE Government as well. STATES are thus preluded from making or enforcing any law “which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; not shall any State deprive anu person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of law.” “
http://www.kypros.org/Documents/Tornaritis/docs/human.html

Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit the States from disarming American Citizens. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/26/arpubrg022603.htm See also, end of “Part 1″ at: http://www.billstclair.com/ferran

“Those who would claim the right to a fair and impartial trial is reserved only for American citizens would do well to note that the 14th Amendment defines what a citizen is and then says that no state shall “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But it then states: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” Why the emphasis on citizens in the first two clauses, then the use of the more general term “person” in the third, if not to imply that all people accused of committing a crime in U.S. jurisdiction are protected by its rights?”
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2001/12/04/opinion/4021.shtml

There is no conceptual difference between “Human Rights”, a “Person’s” rights, and “legal rights” in a civilized state:

“By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people.” Ex Parte Milligan (1866) http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2001/12/04/opinion/4021.shtml

“The word person, in the Constitution of the United States, means a human being possessed of natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The word person means a human being in the fullness of his natural riglits, and nothing more. The Greeks, Romans, and English, whether using the word in law or in common parlance, mean this, and nothing more; and you can legally no more express the idea of a slave by it than you can that of a King. A man who is a slave according to slave law, has lost his personage, if I may so speak, and has passed into chattelhood, or thinghood, and all the rights of person are annihilated, or in a state of suspended animation, until the pure air of Liberty inflates his lungs again. “
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/stewartuos.htm#p34-constitution-due-process

“Origin and evolution of human rights: It took centuries of hard struggles to have the fundamental rights of all members of the human family and the inherent dignity and worth of the human person solemnly recognized and safeguarded. Though the feeling of-self-preservation, the passion for liberty and freedom and the resistance to personal aggression, oppression and exploitation are inbred in every human being and date back to dawn of history and though even at the time when man was living in a state of nature and before the formation of political societies the protection of his life, the maintenance of his liberty and the enjoyment of his property were his main preoccupations, nevertheless we cannot speak about human rights until after the formation of the society and the emergence of the state. They cannot pre-exist the state: Man according to Aristotle is by nature ” – political animal”1) and cannot live but in a society organised in a state. But a state cannot exist and function unless governed by certain rules of social behaviour. It is then that the legal relationship between members of the society constituting the state and the society itself is created and rights to such members are granted.2) A right, irrespectively of whether it is a power of the will or a protected interest or a power of the capable of protecting an interest,3) is always granted by law.4) The law is always created by the state and cannot pre-exist its establishment; the members of a state cannot enjoy a right allegedly vested in them either by nature or by what was called “natural law” and brought by them on joining the state.5) Human rights in the various legal system: On the creation of the various forms of the state the individual rights and freedoms started to be recognized and protected by the legal systems of the various states, though to a variable extent depending on the social structure and order prevailing in each particular state. At the same time the clash between the state and the individual regarding their respective rights appeared. As observed by John Stuart Mill6) “the struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earlist familiar particularly in that of Greece, Rome and England”.
http://www.kypros.org/Documents/Tornaritis/docs/human.html

Theoretically, “JUDICIARY is the [next-to] last resort for the protection of human rights in a democratic society. To maintain law and order, the judiciary has to execute the concept of rule of law, uphold the supremacy of the constitution and protect human rights.” http://www.hri.ca/partners/insec/Yb1996/Ch1.shtml

“1.3.1 Concept: All men and women are equal partners in a society. They live and grow up here. Members of a society depend upon one another. All activities of men and women, big or small, revolve round this societal system. As a matter of fact, all human beings are members of the same species. They are equal in so far as their rights and dignity are concerned. They are motivated with reason and conscience. The concept of Human Rights has emerged out of mankind?s reasoning and conscience. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. This means that everyone has the right to live and to live in freedom and safety. The societies are governed by political systems which exercise controls over the actions of its members, institutions, and organisations, both formal and informal. Chosen members of society constitute a Government. A government functions according to the laws passed by the society. A law is a general rule of external human action enforced by an authority/government and human rights are no exception to it. The responsibility of every government is to ensure and protect the human rights of its citizens. Since the rights to life, liberty and security of person are the fundamental rights of human beings, a government must ensure these rights for all citizens irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, colour, sex, race and place of birth. Hence all persons have the right to legal help and protection. No one can be imprisoned or punished without the due process of law. Human beings differ amongst themselves, but the concept of human rights implies that all human beings are equal and have to be treated alike irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, colour, sex, race, place of birth and so on.”
http://www.ncte-in.org/pub/human/chap1.htm

Social media

Original Purposes of the 14th Amendment: